patrick.net

CL says

How did they work exactly? Who paid for the "winners", and what happened to the losers? Were the people selected at random?

We've had at least one thread on Oregon's lottery.

"with no discernible improvement in [purported beneficiaries'] health."

"Researchers found no measurable health benefits in the Medicaid group for several chronic conditions, including hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes."

All taxpayers paid, a few "winners" were selected at random, though they were "winning" like Charlie Sheen, i.e. the purported beneficiaries did not benefit. But, spending (including emergency hospitalizations) increased, which is to say the lobbyists' revenues increased, so from their POV it was a huge success.

Sounds like the Hunger Games

Dan8267 says

Sounds like the Hunger Games

In SF, we have housing lotteries also. At least in those, a few lucky winners get a roof over their heads at a reasonable cost. It doesn't excuse the policies that make housing unaffordable for almost everyone else, but the formula is very similar: artificially raise prices beyond the point of pain, then give a break to a few lucky winners. The difference is, lottery housing tends to be structurally sound; to make it more like the OP question, you'd need leaky roofs and toxic mold and rotten stairs that people can fall through, and of course the retail prices would need to be much higher.

curious2 says

All taxpayers paid, a few "winners" were selected at random, though they were "winning" like Charlie Sheen, i.e. the purported beneficiaries did not benefit. But, spending (including emergency hospitalizations) increased, which is to say the lobbyists' revenues increased, so from their POV it was a huge success.

I have a friend who was in Indiana's Lottery and 'won". I am under the impression that those were all closed and likely went to PCIP under ACA.

My questions are about how they used to work.

He says he paid BCBS for his premiums and that it was cheap, even though he has a chronic illness and high income.

If that is the case (and it might not be), then were the plans subsidized?

Was it Indiana using Medicaid dollars to achieve this?

Any other comments or outrages?

CL says

he has a chronic illness

Was he cured?

BCBS is a brand name owned by Wellpoint. If they gave him a discount or subsidy, but did not cure him, who do you think paid for the chronic treatments?

If they converted his chronic illness into an infinite revenue model ("no lifetime caps"), who won?

curious2 says

CL says

he has a chronic illness

Was he cured?

BCBS is a brand name owned by Wellpoint. If they gave him a discount or subsidy, but did not cure him, who do you think paid for the chronic treatments?

If they converted his chronic illness into an infinite revenue model ("no lifetime caps"), who won?

This was prior to ACA. They did not cure him (He has MS, so I don't think there are cures for that). His management is expensive, and he found them affordable through the lottery.

I assume the State paid for his care via a subsidy that he is unaware of. I would also assume that the State was allowed to implement their Medicaid policies with some latitude, which the lottery was part of.

Is that correct?

CL says

I don't think there are cures for that). His management is expensive....

At what point do you consider those two facts might be related? How many reports do you need to see that (a) Obamneycare increases funding for "management" of chronic conditions (with "no lifetime caps") while (b) sequestration cuts funding for research that might lead to cures and disrupt the expensive (read: lucrative) "management"? The two deals were brought to you by the same people, and maximize revenue and power for those same people; do you imagine them to be entirely coincidental? Do you consider the opposite policy choice (more research funding to find cures and less funding for chronic "management") might produce different results? With STEM graduates unemployed or underemployed, and research funding cut, is your "friend" happily investing in PhRMA stocks and saying gee what a wonderful policy environment we have here?

BTW, have I learned your language of endless rhetorical questions? Can you hear me now?